IN RE: Roblox Corporation Child Sexual Exploitation and Assault Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: ROBLOX CORPORATION CHILD SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION AND ASSAULT LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3166
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:∗ Plaintiff in the Northern District of California Jane Doe action, No.
3:25-cv-05753, moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District
of California. The litigation consists of 31 actions pending in twelve districts, as listed on Schedule
A. The Panel also has been notified of 48 related actions.1 All responding plaintiffs, in the first
instance or in the alternative, support centralization in the Northern District of California; plaintiffs
in five actions or potential tag-along actions also variously suggest the Western District of
Missouri, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the Northern District of Ohio. 	Defendants
Roblox Corporation, Discord Inc., Snap Inc., and Meta Platforms, Inc., oppose centralization and,
if an MDL is created, agree that it should be centralized in the Northern District of California.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Northern District of California will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that they (as minors) or their minor children were
sexually exploited and, in some cases, assaulted by child predators who targeted and groomed
them through the highly popular Roblox gaming platform. 	Plaintiffs contend that, having
established a connection with the minor plaintiffs on Roblox, the predators then persuaded the
minors to continue their interactions, and often to exchange sexually explicit images, on a second
platform such as Discord, Snapchat, or Instagram, or via texting or video-calling on a cellular
phone. 	Plaintiffs 	assert 	substantially 	identical 	claims 	for 	fraudulent 	and 	negligent
misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, and design defect.
These actions will involve common questions of fact concerning the extent of Roblox’s
knowledge that its platform was being used by child predators to target and groom children,
whether Roblox made false representations that Roblox is safe for children to use, whether Roblox
had the means to implement effective parental controls and safety features (such as age and identity
∗ Judge Madeline Cox Arleo did not participate in the decision of this matter.
1 These and any other related actions are potential tag-alongs. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and
7.2.
Case MDL No. 3166 Document 98 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
verification) that would have prevented the sexual exploitation of children, and whether Roblox
provided adequate warnings about the risks of sexual exploitation associated with children’s use
of its platform. Those actions that involve a second, non-Roblox platform defendant will involve
highly similar factual questions regarding their respective platforms. 	Questions such as the
technological feasibility of enhanced child safety features likely will be highly complex and to
require extensive fact and expert discovery. Centralization will avoid duplicative discovery and
Daubert motions regarding this and other issues.
In opposing centralization, defendants argue that any common issues of fact will be
overwhelmed by factual variations among the cases. They contend that the platforms at issue, the
specifics of the incidents of sexual exploitation, and the statements regarding the platforms’ safety
allegedly relied upon by plaintiffs vary from case to case. In addition, defendants state that they
will move to compel arbitration in many, if not all, cases; that the terms of their arbitration
provisions have been amended multiple times over the years; and that the enforceability of the
provisions will depend on case-specific considerations such as the nature and date of the sexual
exploitation and the manner in which plaintiffs assented to the arbitration terms. These variations,
they argue, will require that the arbitration motions by resolved on a case-by-case basis.
Defendants suggest that informal coordination is both feasible and preferable to centralization.
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Although defendants’ platforms have distinct
features and controls, it is not uncommon for product liability MDLs, including those involving
video games and social media platforms, to involve a number of different defendants and products.
See, e.g., In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Prods. Liab. Litig., 637 F.
Supp. 3d 1377, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2022). Moreover, that many of the actions involve more than one
defendant and platform does not weigh against centralization, particularly given that plaintiffs
assert an indivisible injury resulting from the use of defendants’ products. Absent an MDL, the
complexities of managing such multi-defendant, multi-product actions would not be avoided, but
instead would be spread among multiple courts in multiple districts. 	Centralization thus will
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. 	The transferee court can
address differences among the platforms by establishing separate discovery and motion tracks as
it deems appropriate.
Centralization also will allow coordinated handling of pretrial motions on several cross-
cutting issues. 	Defendants likely will raise overlapping defenses in all or most actions, such as
whether plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or the
First Amendment, whether defendants have a duty to protect users from the actions of third-party
predators, and whether the acts of such third parties are superseding causes of plaintiffs’ injuries.
And despite defendants’ contention that motions to compel arbitration will not be susceptible to
coordinated handling, efficiencies likely can be gained by having a single court preside over all
such motions. For instance, bellwether motion practice may be possible, as the motions likely can
be organized into tracks involving different fact patterns. It also may be possible to resolve some
common issues, such as whether the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual
Harassment Act forecloses the possibility of arbitrating these claims, with combined briefing
covering most or all actions.
Case MDL No. 3166 Document 98 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
Nor are we convinced by defendants’ suggestion that informal coordination is preferable
to centralization of the actions. This litigation currently consists of nearly 80 actions and potential
tag-along actions pending across eighteen districts before dozens of judges. 	At least fifteen
different plaintiffs’ firms are involved thus far. 	Further actions seem likely, particularly as the
Louisiana, Kentucky, and Texas attorneys general recently have filed actions against Roblox based
on its alleged failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the safety of minors.2 In these circumstances,
centralization may be only means to ensure effective coordinated handling of the cases.
The Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.
Movant and all responding plaintiffs, in the first instance or in the alternative, prefer centralization
there. Defendants, too, request the Northern District of California as the transferee district if an
MDL is created. Nineteen of the 31 actions are pending there, as are 24 potential tag-along actions.
Defendants Roblox, Discord, and Meta are headquartered in the district, and Snap is headquartered
nearby, in Santa Monica. 	We assign the litigation to Chief Judge Richard Seeborg, a highly
experienced transferee judge who presides over a pending action. We are confident that he will
manage these proceedings efficiently.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern District of California and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Richard Seeborg for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton 	Matthew F. Kennelly
David C. Norton 	Roger T. Benitez
Dale A. Kimball
2 	In addition, the Florida attorney general has commenced a criminal investigation of Roblox
based on similar contentions, and the Oklahoma attorney general reportedly is initiating an
investigation.
Case MDL No. 3166 Document 98 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 5

IN RE: ROBLOX CORPORATION CHILD SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION AND ASSAULT LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3166
SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
JANE DOE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−07154
Northern District of California
DOE, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:25−04329
DOE, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−05753
JANE DOE R.M., A MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AND NEXT
FRIEND, JANE DOE Z.O. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:25−06087
DOE S.G., ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−06812
DOE M.P, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:25−06886
JANE DOE GS 1 v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07143
DOE, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07174
DOE I.V., ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:25−07192
DOE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07291
DOE Z.P., ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:25−07393
DOE M.J., ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07486
DOE, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07686
DOE, A MINOR, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07852
DOE D.M., ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07859
DOE, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07909
M.S. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07925
DOE, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−07899
DOE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:25−03520
DOE A.L., ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 4:25−07676
Northern District of Georgia
DOE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−04953
Southern District of Iowa
T.T. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 4:25−00314
Western District of Michigan
DOE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00208
Case MDL No. 3166 Document 98 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 5

- A2-
Eastern District of Missouri
DOE G.C. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 4:25−01402
Western District of Missouri
J.S. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 6:25−03254
Northern District of Ohio
DOE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:25−01980
Western District of Oklahoma
A.E., ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 5:25−00959
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
DOE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−04256
Northern District of Texas
DOE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:25−02175
Southern District of Texas
DOE v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:25−00172
DOE, ET AL. v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−00128
Case MDL No. 3166 Document 98 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 5